Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Manifest Destiny, Segregation, and Lebensraum

Discussion in 'Concentration, Death Camps and Crimes Against Huma' started by GunSlinger86, Feb 4, 2015.

  1. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    I know during the Nuremberg trials many Nazis used the US policy of Manifest Destiny, pushing West and using their fighting might to impose their will on the Native Americans. Americans had the belief that it was their duty, their "destiny," etc., to take over these lands for the American "white of European heritage" way of life, and force the Native Americans off the land (they also felt the Indians were inferior, but not to the extent the Nazis hated Jews and Slavs). They killed them off in brutal massacres, blankets with diseases they weren't immune to, even booze to incite riots. After the Americans succeeded, they forced the Indians onto reservations, which could be similar to concentration camps. The similarities are striking to Hitler and the Nazis ideas for Lebensraum, except the racial hatred and feeling them to be subhuman on a level even lower to Native Americans. Hitler stated he took the American system of Segregation as inspiration for Jewish policies pre-war. Blacks weren't allowed to touch whites, kiss, couldn't make eye contact or talk to informally, and everything in public was separate. Blacks were regularly beaten, hung, shot, and the whites who did it were always acquitted until the FBI got involved with the murder of white civil rights workers and the one black kid. Admiral Nimitz got Karl Donitz off the gallows by sending a statement to the trial saying the Americans in no way attempted to save Japanese sailors and soldiers after they sunk a Japanese ship, and left them to their fate in the water, which is the policy the Germans took against England in the Atlantic during the war. The similarities are very striking and it seems we get left off the radar when talking about these topics.
     
  2. Smiley 2.0

    Smiley 2.0 Smiles

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    1,450
    Likes Received:
    180
    Location:
    The Land of the Noble Steed
    Hmmm....I honestly would have never made the connection between the two ideas. That is quite interesting.
     
  3. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    14,288
    Likes Received:
    2,605
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    There is a great deal of similarity. Segregation was certainly the policy followed in many states. Killing of Native Americans is certainly a shameful series of events in American history. There is however, one point of difference between the US and Nazi policy; that is the role of the central government. In Nazi Germany it was the avowed aim of the entire setup that untermenschen were to be eliminated. Such a belief was never articulated by the central government of the US. While segregation and the "resettlement" of Native Americans was carried out with the tacit approval of many both inside and outside of the government, it was never the central belief of the government. At least lip-service was paid to the concept of equality. It was never so in Nazi Germany. In fact, inequality was at the base of their thinking. While this certainly doesn't excuse what happened in the US, at least it explains (at least to me) the difference between the two.
     
    belasar likes this.
  4. Victor Gomez

    Victor Gomez Ace

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,292
    Likes Received:
    115
    I think if you spend some time studying this roster in many states.....there is plenty of activity takes place today within our borders but often it is kept somewhat in the shadows until it gets an opportunity to exert pressure and influence at times when they can get the maximum positive exposure to elevate their "causes". One doesn't always have to go back with history if one wishes to view what is happening presently as they wait for those opportunities. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/neo-nazi/active_hate_groups
     
  5. Highway70

    Highway70 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    39
    Location:
    Challenge, CA
    According to the ADL (Anti Defamation League) the largest neo-Nazi hate group is the NSM (National Socialist Movement). "It has consistently maintained a membership of several hundred members"

    Assuming 20 groups (The SPLC lists fewer than that) with 200 members (I'm being generous) each, the total membership of such groups would be 4000. The adult population of the United States in more than 242,000,000.
     
  6. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,753
    Likes Received:
    328
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    very interesting topic Gunny.....thank you for posting ....now, the Native Americans murdered/raped/robbed/warred on each other...long before the Europeans came...it's not like they were totally innocent angels...they wiped out other tribes....for the Iroquois, war was a way of life...the whites did not put thousands of NAs on a train, put them in a corral, and shoot them....were there massacres? yes..I will agree on the blanket deal.....but not factory murder...no Wannsee conference...I see a big difference from the 1800s to 1940, though, come on. ....and the Japanese were known to fake surrender and then kill......so I too would either shoot them, or let them drown.....simple
     
  7. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Actually that one is quite questionable if you are talking about using them to deliberately infect. I think we've discussed this a couple of times previously although this is the first time I've seen the connection made between "manifest destiny" and "lebensraum". It is an interesting parallel and I'm rather amazed that I haven't seen it before at least explicitly.
     
  8. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,753
    Likes Received:
    328
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    I'm on the line with this also,....I kept thinking about it, [ tough one, for my brain :salute: ] and I always try to imagine the other person's view.....I thought they did try to kill [they were deadly?? ] with the blankets..?? women and children?
     
  9. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    584
    The deportation of the Cherokee tribe along the Trail of Tears would almost certainly be considered an act of genocide, if it occurred today.

    But there are mitigating circumstances: there wasn't a uniform, concentrated effort to eradicate Amerindians. There were official voices for justice and moderation.

    The investigation into the Sand Creek Massacre stated:

    "As to Colonel Chivington, your committee can hardly find fitting terms to describe his conduct. Wearing the uniform of the United States, which should be the emblem of justice and humanity; holding the important position of commander of a military district, and therefore having the honor of the government to that extent in his keeping, he deliberately planned and executed a foul and dastardly massacre which would have disgraced the veriest savage among those who were the victims of his cruelty. Having full knowledge of their friendly character, having himself been instrumental to some extent in placing them in their position of fancied security, he took advantage of their in-apprehension and defenceless condition to gratify the worst passions that ever cursed the heart of man.
    Whatever influence this may have had upon Colonel Chivington, the truth is that he surprised and murdered, in cold blood, the unsuspecting men, women, and children on Sand creek, who had every reason to believe they were under the protection of the United States authorities, and then returned to Denver and boasted of the brave deed he and the men under his command had performed.
    In conclusion, your committee are of the opinion that for the purpose of vindicating the cause of justice and upholding the honor of the nation, prompt and energetic measures should be at once taken to remove from office those who have thus disgraced the government by whom they are employed, and to punish, as their crimes deserve, those who have been guilty of these brutal and cowardly acts."

    [​IMG] <= Capt. Soule, a man of real character.
    Captain Silas Soule, who had ordered the men under his command not to fire their weapons, was murdered in Denver just weeks after offering his testimony.
    However, despite the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the Wars' recommendation, no charges were brought against those who committed the massacre. (One wonders how that could be allowed, without at least semi-official protection)
    The closest thing to a punishment Chivington suffered was the effective end of his political aspirations.
     
  10. KJ Jr

    KJ Jr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    3,148
    Likes Received:
    359
    Location:
    New England
    There is definitely a similarity between the two. I have to echo IWD in that I have never thought about it in depth and never really made a solid connection. Thanks to the OP because I believe it is important. Not being a homer, there is a distinct difference between the two and Lou touched on it: there was NOT a systematic genocidal Final Solution put in place. As horrific as the events were during the American expansion, there are not comparable to the Holocaust.

    Interested to see where this thread goes.
     
  11. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    I wasn't saying they were dead-on, and I agree that the US government didn't make it official policy to hate and eradicate, and there were public voicings for the other POV as well. Yes, American troops burned down Indian villages to the ground as the Nazis did in Russia and the Ukraine. Someone mentioned the Trail of Tears, etc. We haven't even mentioned the Imperial British Empire of the 18th and 19th centuries. They thought they were the saviors of mankind and used brutality by force almost everywhere they went.
     
  12. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    From what I recall reading the only case where an attempt was made to deliberately infect and kill Indians happened in Canada under the orders of a local military officer. There were apparently some accidental cases though. It's been a while since I read the material but I belive on one or more occasions a charity distributed blankets to the Indians some of which had been donated from hospitals or other locations where they picked up infections. Given the process and people and orginizations involved there was a pretty strong case against deliberate infection and an even stronger one against an official attempt at such.
     
  13. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    584
    The British were definitely not that bad. What happened in the British Empire, was, as in the case with the Sand Creek Massacre, more often than not, an aggressive officer wanting to carve himself a piece of glory, rather than official policy. And just as with Colonel Chivington, there were seldom any serious consequences.

    As Empires go, they were far more forward thinking than the Portugese, Belgian, or Spanish.

    I'm sort of curious as to how one uses brutality without force...
     
  14. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Considering the most recent ruling about events in the "former Yugoslavia" I don't think so. Certainly ethnic clearing and one of the darkest chapters in US history but probably not up to the lavel of "genocide".
     
  15. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    584
    Yeah, you may be right, that ruling was a bit of a surprise.
     
  16. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    That depended a lot on the time and place. As one might expect the further back one goes the worse it is. For instance the British made very deliberate attempts to destroy the Gaelic culture of the Scots and Irish in part at least because some elements of those cultures were antithetical to their own. Even in the late 19th and 20th century there was a strong element of what might best be called "cultural Imperialism" although again it was hardly unreasonable. Indeed much of it was thought of as bringing inlightenment and the benefits of a supior system to those less fortunate (whether they wanted or appreciated it or not). One could even make a case for there being some justification for it and the problem being that it wasn't taken far enough. Certainly many (most or possibly all) of the former British colonies enjoy standards of living and freedoms well above those found in most other places outside of Europe.
     
  17. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    584
    While I'd not condone the cultural imperialism, I still find the British rule to be mostly moderate, especially in comparison to almost any other of the colonial powers, at any time. So while I'll not defend their ill-deeds, I do tend to get a little put out of place when it is singled out, as a doer of misdeeds. Because the other Empires (especially contemporaneous ones to it) do not have a better record at all, when it comes to implementing justice, schooling, freedom of press, repression of uprisings, minority rights, etc.

    As you point out, attitudes towards the Irish certainly left a great deal to be desired.
     
  18. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,329
    Likes Received:
    1,712
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    The taking of territory is the history of every nation. That's how nations are formed. I'm not saying it's "moral" just pointing out the simple truth.

    Equating Nazi extermination with American expansion is simply ridiculous. There were no "smallpox infected blankets" and five minutes on google will dispel that silly bit of propaganda. Yes, we fought the Indians and took their land. We won, they lost. Then, we gave them parts of their land to live on, or if they wanted they could simply join the greater American culture. Heck, you can't throw a dead cat in a crowd of Americans without hitting somebody claiming some Indian ancestry. I'm one myself...

    Were there atrocities against Indians? Yes, of course there was. Were there atrocities against innocent American civilians by Indians? Yes, of course that happened also, and at a far more frequent rate.

    What we (Americans) didn't do was lock people in camps and begin gassing them. And no, a reservation is not a concentration camp. Nobody is forced to live there and collect a monthly check. They can leave any time they want and get a job and a house in the suburbs and pay the damned mortgage like anyone else.

    This wasn't the Nazi plan for eastern Europe. The Nazi vision didn't encompass Jews, Gypsies, Slavs buying a house in suburban Berlin and taking up the plumbing trade.
     
    Biak likes this.
  19. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    18,045
    Likes Received:
    2,364
    Location:
    Alabama
    That infected blanket myth is just that, a myth. A cursory stroll through Googleland renders any number of reputable sources debunking that spurious claim.

    As for brutal massacres, I think that knife cuts both ways. At least my ancestor's sister, who, in Alabama in 1817, witnessed the massacre of her entire immediate family and herself survived a scalping will think so.

    Blacks could not touch whites, make eye contact, or talk informally? That is news to me. I think you've been watching too much TV. There were laws against inter-racial marriage and the like.

    Blacks were "regularly beaten?" You are going to need to supply some numbers for that. There certainly were numerous examples of lynchings and the like, but your wording makes it sound as though physical violence was a daily occurrence to most of the population.

    The testimony of Nimitz in the Dönitz trial at Nuremeburg did not address the shooting of sailors in water but rather unrestricted submarine warfare by nations. Dönitz was being tried for ordering the same by the Kriegsmarine and he successfully argued, using the testimony of Nimitz (and the British Admiralty), that the Allied powers were also guilty of that which he was accused*.


    *He was found guilty of waging unrestricted submarine warfare against neutral shipping in designated areas, but he had no additional prison time added.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Could I suggest to you and others, please break your lengthy posts into paragraphs. It makes it easier to read and address.
     
  20. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    In many ways British colonial policy was very different from the other colonial powers at least as far as I can see. The British seemed to a much greater extent to feel that it was their duty to bring the benefits of their "superior culture" to the colonies. The other colonial powers seemed to concentrate much more on just getting as much wealth out of the colonies as possible. (This is MO so PLS show me where I'm wrong if I am) As a consequence the administration of those other colonies was often much harsher on the other hand they didn't try as hard to supplant the native cultures. India is a good example. The whole concept of an "untouchable" class was anathema to the British (the East India Company was arguably more like the other colonial powers) and that was nothing compared to their reaction when they foundout out about the Thugee. While there were crimes in India it is now the largest democratic country in the world and compared to its neighbors the average citizen is considerably better off.

    As to their relationship to the Irish that isn't so simple either. There is a book called The Twilight Lords that goes into it in some detail (focus is on Ireland and Britain during the Elizibeathan period). The religious differences (and their political consequences) alone after Henery VIII pretty much guaranteed considerable antipathy. Then there were elements of the Gaelic legal system that were also in direct conflict with that of the English and pretty much embededded in Gaelic culture. Certainly not a black and white case (incidently I'm mostly Irish by decent).
     

Share This Page